Sustainability Science

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01208-w

NOTE AND COMMENT

Environmental principles for modern sustainable economic

frameworks including the circular economy
Piero Morseletto1

Received: 21 September 2021 / Accepted: 6 July 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
A set of newly defined environmental principles can advance the sustainability performance of economic frameworks such as
industrial ecology, cradle-to-cradle, and the circular economy. Currently, the environmental sustainability of these frameworks
is mainly derived from the application of efficiency principles such as waste reduction, or closing and narrowing production,
and consumption loops. However, these same principles can bring, in some cases, unintended outcomes that are detrimental
to the environment. Efficiency principles also fall short of environmental sustainability aspirations, doing little to contribute
to addressing the causes of current global environmental crises. This paper examines 7 widely applicable principles aimed
at explicit environmental sustainability: doing no harm to nature, minimising environmental damage, restoring/remediating
environmental damage, net-positive impact, no net loss, maintaining the health of ecosystems, and continual environmental
improvement. These principles could markedly improve efforts to actively pursue sustainability and foster new economic
forms that address our current unsustainable trajectories.

Keywords  Environmental principles · Industrial ecology and circular economy · Rebound effects · Net positive impact and
no net loss · Morality vs greenwashing · Sustainable economy

Economic frameworks1 such as the performance economy,
closed-loop economy, industrial ecology, industrial sym-
biosis, cradle-to-cradle, and blue economy, have enlivened
the debate surrounding sustainability in recent decades. A
more recent concept in this group is the circular economy,
which integrates several aspects of the aforementioned
frameworks (Blomsma and Brennan 2017). All these frame-
works are characterised by overlaps and common threads
(Bocken et al. 2014), and historically they reflect a mounting
interest in reconciling economic practices with social and
environmental concerns. Therefore, the frameworks have
increasingly attracted the attention of governments, business
actors, and academic organisations; for instance, the circu-
lar economy is currently high on the agenda of countries
Handled by Joshua Farley, University of Vermont, United States.
* Piero Morseletto
piero.morseletto@gmail.com
1
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Institute
for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1111,
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
and corporations while being a popular subject in research
(Alnajem et al. 2021).
This study focuses on the environmental aspects of sus-
tainability and its related principles within economic frame-
works. Principles can be defined as the foundational and
guiding ideas that govern actions. They are connected to
ethics and culture, and work as reference points of conduct
(because of this, principles are sometimes confused with
goals or objectives, which are endpoints of actions). Princi-
ples are important because they play a descriptive and nor-
mative function, that is, they suggest what is right and why
this is considered as such (see, e.g. Sandberg 2015).
The above-mentioned frameworks present potential
limitations related to environmental sustainability. In fact,
although some of those frameworks speak about metabolic
processes of waste or preserving, restoring and regenerating
natural capital, these concepts still need detail and refine-
ment (see, e.g. Morseletto 2020b). Instead, most of their
environmental benefits result from the application of effi-
ciency principles such as waste reduction, synergy among
1
  I use here ‘frameworks’ as a unifying term although views, narra-
tives, economic visions or economic models are equally used in the
literature.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Sustainability Science

activities, value retention, and narrowing and closing loops

in production/consumption (i.e., using fewer resources
and recycling them) (Konietzko et  al. 2020; Morseletto
2020a). These principles can produce various favourable
outcomes, for example, efficient resource use, reduction
of primary materials, prolonging the lifecycle of products,
limiting pollution/emissions, and avoiding/re-employing
waste. However, environmental benefits may be incidental
or not actively sought-after (Dhingra et al. 2014). In differ-
ent terms, Daly (2002) underlines that frugality (defined as
‘non-wasteful sufficiency’, rather than ‘meager scantiness’)
is essential in the pursuit of sustainability; it can engender
efficiency, but the reverse is not the case.
I argue that efficiency principles are not sufficient for
environmental sustainability because, in some cases, they
generate greater environmental impacts (e.g. higher emis-
sions, chemical pollution) than simple use-and-disposal
(see for instance, Vivanco and van der Voet 2014; Zink
and Geyer 2017; Niero et al. 2021; Baumann and Lindkvist
2021). Market distortions, opportunity costs, rebound effects
Fig. 1  Avoid, minimise, remediate, and offset steps and the environ-
or profit-driven choices can explain why an activity may mental principles
apply the efficiency principles but be detrimental to the
environment (see also Reinhardt 1999; Agrawal et al. 2012;
Ekins and Zenghelis 2021; Castro et al. 2022). Furthermore, environmental damage (interpreted as including environ-
these principles may have long-term adverse effects when mental footprint, negative environmental impacts, and
they optimise systems that are inherently unsustainable (e.g. alterations to ecosystems). In nature conservation studies,
Milne and Gray 2013; Bjørn and Hauschild 2013). the so-called ‘mitigation hierarchy’ framework is considered
Efficiency principles need to be supplemented by explicit as a comprehensive way to address environmental damage
environmental principles to eliminate ambiguities and dis- in response to increasing land-use pressures and loss of bio-
tortions and contribute to advancing the science and man- diversity in development projects (Arlidge et al. 2018; Bull
agement of sustainability. More importantly, environmental et al. 2020). It is based on four broad action steps: (1) avoid,
principles are necessary to combat global problems such (2) minimise, (3) remediate, and (4) offset. Examples are
as climate change, biodiversity loss or habitat degradation, inter alia: avoiding deforestation; limiting chemical ferti-
which are occurring at an unprecedented pace, extent, and lisers; removing pollutants; and securing areas to protect
intensity (UNEP 2019; IPBES 2019; IPCC 2022). While species of conservation interest. I use the four steps as a
these problems are primarily driven by production/consump- base for determining environmental principles suitable for
tion activities, failure to rapidly reduce ecological degrada- sustainable economic frameworks (see Fig. 1) and verifying
tion is provoking irreversible damages or collapse of ecosys- their range of applications.
tems globally (Bergstrom et al. 2021). In this vein, this study Avoid refers to not implementing actions that cause envi-
aims to identify environmental principles that can divert ronmental damage. The principle that can be associated with
economic frameworks from this catastrophic trajectory and this step is ‘doing no harm to nature’. This principle is
steer actions towards an effective and coherent pursuit of preventive, meaning that it prevents damage from occurring;
sustainability. it is also a safeguard as some impacts (in particular related
Some authors have advanced environmental principles to biodiversity) cannot be reversed and might be considered
for economic frameworks (notably, e.g. Bergen et al. 2001; unacceptable (Bull et al. 2020). Except for a small number of
Muscat et al. 2021). In general, these principles may be too cases, such as in international law and arbitral practice, the
specific (i.e., related to conditions/contexts), too dense (i.e., no-harm principle is rarely mentioned in the environmental
not nuanced enough or encapsulating multiple principles field (Gupta and Schmeier 2020). However, the application
into one), too blurred (i.e., mixing principles with values, of this principle helps avoid destructive or damaging prac-
practices or procedures), or insufficiently consider key eco- tices to the environment in any context including economic
logical aspects. activities. For example, residues from the forest industry
This study takes a different departure point by argu- are returned in a form/quantity that nature can assimilate
ing that principles need to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate

13
Sustainability Science
without harming the ecosystem integrity (Korhonen et al.
2001).
Although the no-harm principle should continuously be
exercised, it is not always possible to avoid damaging nature
when undertaking economic activities. Producing and con-
suming goods/services implies extractive, transformational
and distributional activities that cause unavoidable negative
environmental impacts, for example, emissions or waste and
consumption of resources. Furthermore, the economy is so
dependent on fossil fuels that it is currently impossible to
halt the multiple ecological consequences related to these
sources. However, if no-harm cannot be adopted in absolute
terms within the current economic systems, governments or
organisations can apply it to specific projects with the pros-
pect that it becomes an increasingly adopted principle. No
harm to nature recalls the principle of ‘primum non nocere’
(first, do no harm), a core principle of medicine and bioeth-
ics. In these terms, it should be considered an overarching
precept or inspirational principle in sustainable economic
frameworks. As such, other principles need to supplement it.
‘Minimising environmental damage’ can be understood
from ‘minimise’ in the mitigation hierarchy. This expres-
sion is broadly used in the environmental field even if it is
not commonly considered as a principle. Nonetheless, the
minimisation principle can provide practical guidance on
sustainability in the economic and governance domain. This
aspect implies reducing damages as much as possible while
eliminating unintended negative consequences on natural
systems in relation to all production/consumption practices
starting from those causing greenhouse gas emissions, land-
use change, and chemical pollution (UNEP 2019; Wilting
et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2020). Minimisation requires actors
to constantly seek to reduce impacts at the scales and loca-
tions where they occur (Griffiths et al. 2019), ideally in every
phase of economic activities. For instance, in aluminium
recycling, every operation from scrap collection to recycled
ingot can be the object of damage minimisation (Luthin et al.
2021). Similarly, the cultivation of algae in wastewater can
provide bioremediation services (e.g. removal of excess
nutrients, metals) in addition to its use as a biomass resource
(Lawton et al. 2017).
The no-harm and minimisation principles can have sig-
nificant implications for sustainable economic frameworks.
First, they can be used as selection criteria: activities that
lead to worse environmental impacts should be considered
unsustainable and be rejected or at least limited as much
as possible. As such, these principles are useful to detect
unsustainable practices or misleading statements associated
with green policies. Furthermore, avoiding and minimising
environmental damage can consolidate a culture of envi-
ronmental protection and respect. However, these principles
come at the cost of renouncing as much as possible damag-
ing practices, which implies rethinking the way we make
and use goods (Schumacher 1973; Latouche 2010; Jackson
2009; Alexander 2012).
In the mitigation hierarchy, avoid and minimise relate
to abstaining and refraining, while remediate and offset
require positive action to amend environmental damage.
Offset is considered as a residual category that aims to
tackle impacts—not captured by the first three steps—that
are offset elsewhere (Arlidge et al. 2018). However, for the
identification of principles, remediate and offset can be
treated together because they both deal with remediation
whether this is direct (i.e., occurring where damage resides)
or indirect (i.e., occurring elsewhere, as a form of compen-
sation). A related principle is restoring/remediating envi-
ronmental damage. The restoring and remediating terms
are similar and often used interchangeably. A narrow inter-
pretation of restoring refers to returning to a state similar
to that before the damage occurred. Remediation initially
referred to removing pollution or contaminants, and over
time has evolved to include solutions such as rewilding,
recreating habitats, and re-establishing depleted resources
(Arlidge et al. 2018). Here, I use restoration/remediation
to indicate permanent actions aimed at repairing damage
produced, that is restoring—if possible—the composition,
structure, and functioning of an ecosystem considering its
historic trajectory (Palmer et al. 2016). An example of resto-
ration/remediation in sustainable economic frameworks can
be represented by recycling agricultural by-products for soil
improvement and restoration practices. Agro-waste applica-
tions can improve soil characteristics (e.g. pH, tilth, cation
exchange capacity and microbial activity) while enhanc-
ing its structure (i.e., making it more porous and perme-
able to air and water) (see Singh et al. 2021). Nonetheless,
the no-harm and minimising damage principles should be
kept in mind: even biological materials do not necessarily
biodegrade safely into an ecosystem to feed environmental
processes. Due to the complexity of ecosystems, restora-
tion/remediation requires substantive knowledge of ecologi-
cal functions and dynamics of an ecosystem (prior to the
specified damage as well as the desired state of a restored
ecosystem) (see, e.g. Morseletto 2020b). This is why sus-
tainable economic frameworks must involve experts of dif-
ferent scientific disciplines, in particular, the life sciences, to
articulate and apply the restoring/remediating environmental
damage principle.
A further principle related to remediation and offset in
the mitigation hierarchy is no net loss, which can be defined
as balancing environmental impacts with mitigation, res-
toration or compensation efforts to ensure that no overall
environmental loss results. No net loss is important for sus-
tainable economic frameworks because it establishes that
environmental losses should be counterbalanced by equiva-
lent gains. For example, loss in soil fertility can be compen-
sated by an equal gain from biofertilizers from by-products
13
 Sustainability Science

of food production and consumption (Diacono et al. 2019).

Similarly, pollutant emissions from recycling activities can
be compensated by nature-based solutions (see, e.g. Schau-
broeck 2018).
Where the gain exceeds the loss, the terms net-positive
impact or net gain are used. Net-positive can, therefore, be
considered a further principle for sustainable environmental
frameworks. The point behind this principle is that the con-
sequence of an activity or the remedy to a damage can have
positive environmental impacts. No net loss and net-positive
are sometimes included in the nature-positive concept, and
are frequently quoted in economic and business affairs; how-
ever, they are defined vaguely and pursued poorly (Curran
et al. 2014; Rainey et al. 2015; Bjørn and Hauschild 2013;
Morseletto 2020b). In addition, the indiscriminate and
unqualified use of the terms in the current sustainability
debate causes confusion and ambiguity (Maron et al. 2018).
Therefore, the no net loss and net-positive principles need
to be applied carefully to meet the urgent need for the active
rehabilitation of natural systems. Related actions require
clear metrics, baselines, reference scenarios, and associ-
ated objectives (Curran et al. 2014; Rainey et al. 2015; Bull
et al. 2020). Furthermore, improving ecological functions
is complex; ecosystems have sophisticated structures, and
our knowledge of them is still incomplete, as is our under-
standing of rapid anthropogenic change. This is demon-
strated by the various unintended negative consequences
that nature-positive initiatives can have (e.g. Holl and Bran-
calion 2020); in this case, such initiatives would contrast
with the principles of no harm. Therefore, they should be
renounced, although this aspect should not discourage action
but rather give further impulse to gathering further knowl-
edge for restoring ecosystems effectively and improving
their functions.
The principles so far mentioned can be complemented
by another principle, that is, ‘maintaining the health of
ecosystems,’ advanced by Daly (1991). The ecosystem’s
health (also named ecological integrity, biological integrity,
or ecosystem condition) means that an ecosystem is stable,
provides ecological services, and maintains its structure and
function over time (see Scow et al. 2019). In my view, this
principle is required because it is not sufficient to avoid harm
or amend damage. Sustainable economic frameworks need
to keep a long-term vision on nature conservation, and main-
taining the ecosystem health is a helpful principle toward
this ambition. Like ‘no harm’, even this principle can be
considered an overarching one because maintaining ecosys-
tems’ health is a requisite to sustain existing environmental
conditions.
The last principle that can guide sustainable economic
frameworks to reduce environmental damage is ‘con-
tinual environmental improvement’. This principle can
be defined as an attempt to constantly reduce the negative
Fig. 2  The 7 principles
consequences of economic activity and improve the con-
dition of the environment. Continual improvement recalls
management practices such as those that gained recogni-
tion as ‘Kaizen’ (see Kessler 2013), which aims for con-
tinual small improvements for major business benefits. The
principle of ‘continual environmental improvement’ refers
to efforts that aim to improve the effectiveness of environ-
mental actions. In this vein, this principle reflects an attitude
that galvanises all other principles because there is no end to
making practice better.
Like all principles, the ones described in this study
(summarised in Fig. 2) ask for both rigour and pragmatism
besides their function to give direction and assure coherence
in economic and environmental praxis. Different solutions
adopted in sustainable economic frameworks (e.g. reuse,
recycle, remanufacture, cannibalisation of a product) can
have various opportunity costs vis-à-vis impacts or different
levels of feasibility and preferability. In this context, prin-
ciples can be applied differently or even bend according to
circumstances.
As seen, no harm to nature and maintaining the health of
ecosystems work as overarching principles, together they
act as a kind of grundnorm that operates as a foundational
norm; nonetheless, their strict application may not always
be possible, and their intensity can vary. In general, envi-
ronmental damage needs to be minimised in the first place;
damage needs to be restored, possibly with no net loss or
even some gain. The continual environmental improvement
principle aims to keep all the principles aligned to estab-
lish and enforce pro-nature culture. Generally, principles
are straightforward in their abstract form, but they can be

13
Sustainability Science
adapted when checked against reality. This feature makes
principles different from procedures, which are specific and
codified methods for performing a certain task. Different
situations can demand one or more principles, or a par-
tial application of a few principles. Indeed, limits on the
knowledge of the impacts of an activity can affect the deliv-
ery of actions based on those principles. Furthermore, the
application of principles requires defining boundary lines,
which can be social, cultural, policy or context-specific; for
instance, setting the level of acceptable/unacceptable dam-
age, or the amount of sufficient/adequate action. Environ-
mental principles—again, like all principles—can always
be undermined or partially applied. Nonetheless, principles
are not invalidated by poor application. The intervention to
reduce environmental impacts demands, inter alia, leader-
ship, clear objectives, adequate funding, robust project man-
agement, and transparent monitoring systems.
The 7 principles considered here complement efficiency
principles and aim to establish a strong sustainability ethos
that supports more informed decisions in the economy while
favouring the diffusion of environmentally benign practices.
Concurrently, the 7 principles can also be interpreted as cri-
teria, or constraints, that can be applied to any economic
framework. In these terms, principles provide practical guid-
ance and offer a broad and holistic perspective on nature that
transcends the limits of frameworks based solely on economic
performance. Put more simply, environmental sustainability
cannot be reached by neglecting environmental principles.
Future research may refine further these environmental
principles or inspire or complement codes of conduct and
policies of corporations, governments and organisations. For
example, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights, the International Organization for Stand-
ardization’s ‘ISO 26000:2010 Guidance on social responsibil-
ity’ or ‘ISO/WD 59004 Circular economy—Framework and
principles for implementation’.2 The 7 principles may be used
to define thresholds of what is acceptable vis-à-vis environ-
mental change or contribute to relaunching a process such as
the one initiated by The Bellagio Sustainability Assessment
and Measurement Principles (Jesinghaus 2014). After all, sus-
tainability can be attained through a plurality of principles,
and also visions and methodologies. A debate on principles
is always relevant to verify if claims and intentions about sus-
tainability are aligned with actions. In this view, principles
remain one of the linchpins to reconnect reality with morality,
and morality with sustainability (see Norgaard 1985, 2021).
Sustainability requires continuous effort for its realisation and
principles are necessary to steer this endeavour.
2
 Currently under development: https://​www.​busin​ess-​human​rights.​
org/​en/​big-​issues/​un-​guidi​ng-​princ​iples-​on-​busin​ess-​human-​r ights/,
https://​www.​iso.​org/​obp/​ui/#​iso:​std:​iso:​26000:​ed-1:​v1:​en, https://​
www.​iso.​org/​stand​ard/​80648.​html.
Humanity is walking a narrow corridor. On the one side,
induced environmental change provokes severe impacts and
the trespassing of several ecological thresholds at the local
and global scales (Vanham et al. 2019). On the other side,
the economy has difficulties moving away from schemes
that pollute and consume resources; instead, sustainable
solutions are not applied extensively. The adoption of the
7 principles can enlarge the wiggle room for sustainabil-
ity by significantly reducing environmental damage. At the
same time, they can increase the range and magnitude of
sustainability within economic frameworks. In this sense,
the 7 principles of environmental sustainability can help to
navigate the future through the multifaceted challenges of
meeting basic human needs without compromising ecosys-
tem functioning.
Acknowledgements  I am grateful to Genevieve Quirk, Arthur Rempel,
Richard Norgaard and Sarah Clement for their comments and sugges-
tions. Naturally, any remaining errors are my own. Finally, I thank
Trevor Zink and Roland Geyer, to whom in early 2020 I proposed to
cowrite the paper; this purpose faded away because of the pandemic
and other circumstances. Ciao papà.
Funding  No funding.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  No conflict of interests.
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
References
Agrawal VV, Ferguson M, Toktay LB, Thomas VM (2012) Is leasing
greener than selling? Manage Sci 58(3):523–533. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1287/​mnsc.​1110.​1428
Alexander S (2012) The sufficiency economy: envisioning a prosper-
ous way down. https://s​ impli​ cityi​ nstit​ ute.o​ rg/w
​ p-c​ onten​ t/u​ pload​ s/​
2011/​04/​TheSu​ffici​encyE​conom​y3.​pdf
Alnajem M, Mostafa MM, ElMelegy AR (2021) Mapping the first dec-
ade of circular economy research: a bibliometric network analysis.
J Ind Prod Eng 38(1):29–50. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21681​015.​
2020.​18386​32
Arlidge WN, Bull JW, Addison PF, Burgass MJ, Gianuca D, Gorham
TM, Milner-Gulland EJ et al (2018) A global mitigation hierarchy
13

for nature conservation. Bioscience 68(5):336–347. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1093/​biosci/​biy029
Baumann H, Lindkvist M (2021) A sociomaterial conceptualization
of flows in industrial ecology. J Ind Ecol 2021:1–12. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/​jiec.​13212
Bergen SD, Bolton SM, Fridley JL (2001) Design principles for eco-
logical engineering. Ecol Eng 18(2):201–210
Bergstrom DM, Wienecke BC, van den Hoff J, Hughes L, Lindenmayer
DB, Ainsworth TD, Shaw JD et al (2021) Combating ecosys-
tem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic. Glob Change Biol
27(9):1692–1703
Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2013) Absolute versus relative environmental
sustainability: what can the cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficiency
concepts learn from each other? J Ind Ecol 17(2):321–332. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1530-​9290.​2012.​00520.x
Blomsma F, Brennan G (2017) The emergence of circular economy: a
new framing around prolonging resource productivity. J Ind Ecol
21(3):603–614. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jiec.​12603
Bocken NMP, Short SW, Rana P, Evans S (2014) A literature and
practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
J Cleaner Prod 65:42–56
Bull JW, Milner-Gulland EJ, Addison PF, Arlidge WN, Baker J, Brooks
TM, Watson JE et al (2020) Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat
Ecol Evol 4(1):4–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41559-​019-​1022-z
Castro CG, Trevisan AH, Pigosso DA, Mascarenhas J (2022) The
rebound effect of circular economy: definitions, mechanisms and
a research agenda. J Clean Prod. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​
ro.​2022.​131136
Curran M, Hellweg S, Beck J (2014) Is there any empirical support for
biodiversity offset policy? Ecol Appl 24(4):617–632
Daly HE (1991) Steady-state economics. Island Press, Washington, DC
Daly HE (2002) Sustainable development: definitions, principles, poli-
cies. World Bank, Washington, DC
Dhingra R, Kress R, Upreti G (2014) Does lean mean green? J Clean
Prod 85:1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2014.​10.​032
Diacono M, Persiani A, Testani E, Montemurro F, Ciaccia C (2019)
Recycling agricultural wastes and by-products in organic farming:
biofertilizer production, yield performance and carbon footprint
analysis. Sustainability 11(14):3824. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
su111​43824
Ekins P, Zenghelis D (2021) The costs and benefits of environmental
sustainability. Sustain Sci 16(3):949–965. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s11625-​021-​00910-5
Griffiths VF, Bull JW, Baker J, Milner-Gulland EJ (2019) No net loss
for people and biodiversity. Conserv Biol 33(1):76–87
Gupta J, Schmeier S (2020) Future proofing the principle of no signifi-
cant harm. Int Environ Agreem Polit Law Econ 20(4):731–747.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10784-​020-​09515-2
Holl KD, Brancalion PH (2020) Tree planting is not a simple solu-
tion. Science 368(6491):580–581. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​
ce.​aba82​32
IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosys-
tem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC (2022). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate
change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the sixth assessment report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University
Press
Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite
planet. Routledge, London
Jesinghaus J (2014) Bellagio principles for assessing sustainable devel-
opment. In: Michalos AC (ed) Encyclopedia of quality of life and
well-being research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 360–361
13
Sustainability Science
Kessler EH (ed) (2013) Encyclopedia of management theory. Sage
Publications, Los Angeles
Konietzko J, Bocken N, Hultink EJ (2020) Circular ecosystem innova-
tion: an initial set of principles. J Clean Prod 253:119942. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​119942
Korhonen J, Wihersaari M, Savolainen I (2001) Industrial ecosystem
in the Finnish forest industry: using the material and energy flow
model of a forest ecosystem in a forest industry system. Ecol Econ
39(1):145–161
Latouche S (2010) Farewell to growth. Polity, Cambridge
Lawton RJ, Cole AJ, Roberts DA, Paul NA, de Nys R (2017) The
industrial ecology of freshwater macroalgae for biomass appli-
cations. Algal Res 24:486–491. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​algal.​
2016.​08.​019
Luthin A, Backes JG, Traverso M (2021) A framework to identify
environmental-economic trade-offs by combining life cycle
assessment and life cycle costing—a case study of aluminium
production. J Clean Prod 321:128902. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jclep​ro.​2021.​128902
Maron M, Brownlie S, Bull JW, Evans MC, von Hase A, Quétier F,
Watson JE, Gordon A (2018) The many meanings of no net loss
in environmental policy. Nat Sustain 1(1):19–27. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s41893-​017-​0007-7
Milne MJ, Gray R (2013) W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom
line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability
reporting. J Bus Ethics 118(1):13–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10551-​012-​1543-8
Morseletto P (2020a) Targets for a circular economy. Resour Conserv
Recycl 153:104553. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2019.​
104553
Morseletto P (2020b) Restorative and regenerative: exploring the con-
cepts in the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 24(4):763–773. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jiec.​12987
Muscat A, de Olde EM, Ripoll-Bosch R, Van Zanten HH, Metze TA,
de Boer IJ et al (2021) Principles, drivers and opportunities of a
circular bioeconomy. Nat Food 2(8):561–566. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1038/​s43016-​021-​00340-7
Niero M, Jensen CL, Fratini CF, Dorland J, Jørgensen MS, Georg S
(2021) Is life cycle assessment enough to address unintended side
effects from Circular Economy initiatives? J Ind Ecol. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/​jiec.​13134
Norgaard RB (1985) Environmental economics: an evolution-
ary critique and a plea for pluralism. J Environ Econ Manag
12(4):382–394
Norgaard RB (2021) Post-economics: reconnecting reality and morality
to escape the Econocene. Real-world Econ Rev 96:49–66. Availa-
ble at http://w​ ww.p​ aecon.n​ et/P
​ AERev​ iew/i​ ssue9​ 6/N
​ orgaa​ rd96.p​ df
Palmer MA, Zedler JB, Falk DA (2016) Foundations of restoration
ecology. Island Press, Washington, DC
Rainey HJ, Pollard EH, Dutson G, Ekstrom JM, Livingstone SR, Tem-
ple HJ, Pilgrim JD (2015) A review of corporate goals of no net
loss and net positive impact on biodiversity. Oryx 49(2):232–238.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0030​60531​30014​76
Reinhardt F (1999) Market failure and the environmental policies of
firms: economic rationales for “beyond compliance” behavior. J
Ind Ecol 3(1):9–21
Sandberg J (2015) Moral economy and normative ethics. J Glob Eth-
ics 11(2):176–187. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/1​ 74496​ 26.2​ 015.1​ 0545​
57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​landu​sepol.​2016.​05.​018
Schaubroeck T (2018) Towards a general sustainability assessment
of human/industrial and nature-based solutions. Sustain Sci
13(4):1185–1191. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11625-​018-​0559-0
Schumacher EF (1973) Small is beautiful: economics as if people mat-
tered. Blond & Briggs, London
Scow KM, Fogg GE, Johnson HDE, ML, (eds) (2019) Integrated
assessment of ecosystem health. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Sustainability Science
Singh R, Das R, Sangwan S, Rohatgi B, Khanam R, Peera SK, Misra
S et al (2021) Utilisation of agro-industrial waste for sustainable
green production: a review. Environ Sustain. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s42398-​021-​00200-x
UNEP (2019) United Nations Environment Programme Sixth Global
Environment Outlook (GEO-6). Available at: https://w ​ edocs.u​ nep.​
org/b​ itstr​ eam/h​ andle/2​ 0.5​ 00.1​ 1822/2​ 7539/G
​ EO6_2​ 019.p​ df?s​ eque​
nce=​1&​isAll​owed=y
Vanham D, Leip A, Galli A, Kastner T, Bruckner M, Uwizeye A, Hoek-
stra AY et al (2019) Environmental footprint family to address
local to planetary sustainability and deliver on the SDGs. Sci
Total Environ 693:133642. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​
2019.​133642
Vivanco DF, van der Voet E (2014) The rebound effect through
industrial ecology’s eyes: a review of LCA-based studies. Int J
Life Cycle Assess 19(12):1933–1947. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11367-​014-​0802-6
Wang Z, Walker GW, Muir DC, Nagatani-Yoshida K (2020) Toward a
global understanding of chemical pollution: a first comprehensive
analysis of national and regional chemical inventories. Environ
Sci Technol 54(5):2575–2584. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​
9b063​79
Wilting HC, Schipper AM, Bakkenes M, Meijer J, Huijbregts MA
(2017) Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consump-
tion: a global-scale footprint analysis. Environ Sci Technol
51(6):3298–3306. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​6b052​96
Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol
21(3):593–602. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jiec.​12545
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13